Blog Archives

Embargo for “The Hunger Games” movie reviews has been lifted today and international reviews for “The Hunger Games” are flooding in. As there are too many of them, we have provided links to the full reviews along with the given score and a quote on the first couple sentences of the review.

We will try to update this post with new reviews as soon as we find them though please understand it’s generally impossible for us to post all of it. Do leave a comment below if you do spot any review we haven’t posted yet.

Please approach the reviews with caution. Some do include spoilers such as opening scenes for “The Hunger Games” movie.

The list of reviews for “The Hunger Games” movie are as below and listed from A-Z:

Science fiction’s defenders refer to the genre, in its highest moments, as “a literature of ideas.” The irony is that on film, the ideas in science fiction are often shoved to the back seat in favor of letting the images take the wheel—whether you think that the Transformers series is trash or treasure, the films’ only big idea is “Robot trucks are cool.” But in The Hunger Games, the film adaptation of Suzanne Collins’ best-selling novel (itself the first in a trilogy), the ideas and the characters drive the story. Avid fans of the books were going to make the film a hit, regardless. It’s our good fortune that, much like the people behind the Potter films figured out, you can rake in dough from the crowds and make a beloved book into an actual film of quality. With over 1,000 showings already sold out at this writing, a week before release, look for The Hunger Games to be Lionsgate’s biggest-ever hit. Better yet, it deserves to be.

Too often when it comes to big screen adaptations of beloved best-selling novels, we spend the bulk of a review pointing out all of the places the filmmaker went wrong. With The Hunger Games, it’s a distinct pleasure to sing about all of the places the masterful translation went right.

Anticipation couldn’t be higher for the long-awaited first screen outing of The Hunger Games (2012), the inaugural film in a planned Lionsgate trilogy of three, based on the best-selling teen books from US author Suzanne Collins. Featuring an eclectic cast of young rising stars (Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth) and established talent (Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci and Donald Sutherland), director Gary Ross has a potential blockbusting hit on his hands – but will the dark, dystopian subject matter prove too tough for young audiences?

Gary Ross is a brave man. He’d need to be, of course, to take on a project like The Hunger Games: the books have sold millions of copies, and have attracted both intense adulation and fierce criticism. The movie is a big deal, and the weight of its success or failure sits on his shoulders, so just making it requires courage.

Probably the greatest achievement of The Hunger Games, and there are many, is that in adapting a phenomenally successful teen novel its creative team have produced something that works as a film, not just as an adaptation of a book.

In the lead up to its release, The Hunger Games has been compared to the Potter franchise, Twilight, Battle Royale and even The Running Man. It’s understandable. It’s standard practice when writing about movies to use the “it’s a bit like ‘this’ meets ‘that’” shorthand to describe something new. The problem with The Hunger Games is that it completely defies that trick. It may have clear points of comparison with those films, but it would be just as fair to compare it to countless others, like Serenity or Children of Men or even leading lady, Jennifer Lawrence’s breakthrough movie, Winter’s Bone.

Gary Ross was, to say the least, an unconventional choice when it came to helming the adaptation of the popular young adult novels “The Hunger Games,” written by Suzanne Collins. Ross has established himself as a particular kind of filmmaker with his work on films like “Dave,” “Big,” “Pleasantville,” and “Seabiscuit.” He’s not the guy you think of for world-building science-fiction or big action. Yet when we look back at these films in the future, one of the smartest choices they could have made was giving this first film to Ross, because he’s made something very special, concerned primarily with the human heart of the story instead of the spectacle.

Arriving with a ton of hype and anticipation, The Hunger Games certainly isn’t lacking for attention. As with any project of this kind, the question is whether all of this hype is towards something worthwhile. Luckily, The Hunger Games answers that question with a resounding yes.

Complexity and understatement are two criminally under-utilized values in most mainstream movies these days, but they’re at the core of, and the chief reason for the success of “The Hunger Games.” Director Gary Ross, screenwriter of the proletariat presidential fantasy “Dave” and writer-director of the social-consciousness-as-sci-fi tome “Pleasantville,” has always engaged his subjects with a light and yet substantial touch, but his adaptation of Suzanne Collins’ acclaimed young-adult novel is a truly remarkable achievement: he turns escapism into a deeply emotional experience. Instantly razing comparisons – qualitative especially — to other female-friendly series such as “Twilight,” “The Hunger Games” is the first film in a long time that deserves Hollywood’s instant-franchise ambitions because it appeals to genre fans regardless of gender by crafting a story that’s both epic and intimate, spectacular and subtle.

Media:Screen DailyScore:“Dystopian sci-fi, tense action-thriller, soapy teen romance, grim social commentary: The big-screen adaptation of The Hunger Games certainly doesn’t lack for ambition, and although it’s mostly successful, one can’t help wishing the film could have better integrated its different tones and agendas. Based on the popular first novel in Suzanne Collins’ trilogy about a dark future society where young people must kill each other for sport, this much-anticipated film is anchored by Jennifer Lawrence’s strong central performance, which helps compensate for a somewhat derivative storyline and worldview.”Quote:

The film’s tagline – “The World Will Be Watching” – refers to the televised titular contest, but it also serves as an apt prediction for the movie’s box office prospects. Lionsgate hopes they’ve found their own Twilight/Harry Potter/Lord Of The Rings fantasy franchise, and certainly awareness for The Hunger Games is high. The only downside for Lionsgate may be the studio having to temper industry expectations if their film falls short of the unbelievably high commercial bar set by three of the most popular screen series of the last decade. So the question will be not whether Hunger Games makes a killing but, rather, just how spectacular the grosses will be.

When Lionsgate began the task of adapting The Hunger Games for the screen, the odds were never in its favor. The book was too violent, too well-known and too hard to translate because not only was it about kids killing each other, it would also have to create a whole new world.

This compelling, lightly satirical tale is that rarest of beasts: a Hollywood action blockbuster that is smart, taut and knotty

Media:The Hollywood ReporterScore:“Jennifer Lawrence is stellar in this faithful, good-enough film version of the massive best-seller.”Quote:

The arrow hits an outer circle of the target in The Hunger Games, an amply faithful adaptation of Suzanne Collins’ monster young-adult best-seller that could have used a higher blood count in more ways than one. As she did in her breakthrough film Winter’s Bone, Jennifer Lawrence anchors this futuristic and politicized elaboration of The Most Dangerous Game with impressive gravity and presence, while director Gary Ross gets enough of what matters in the book up on the screen to satisfy its legions of fans worldwide. This Lionsgate release is being positioned as the hottest property for the teen audience since Twilight, and there’s no reason to believe that box office results won’t land roughly in that vaunted vicinity.

That Bella Swan; she’s no Katniss Everdeen. Both teenage heroines journey deep into the woods at dusk, but while Twilight’s Bella returns flanked by bickering supernatural beefcake, Katniss emerges alone, smeared in blood and muck and gnawing on the charred remains of a spatchcocked squirrel. In The Hunger Games, the characters don’t fall straightforwardly into one team or the other. There are no vampires vs werewolves here, just Katniss on one side and the rest of the world on the other, although you wouldn’t fancy the rest of the world’s chances.

The perils of allowing a successful author to adapt their own work for the screen are demonstrated once again in this absorbing but cluttered take on Suzanne Collins’s highly regarded post-apocalyptic teen epic. This is a gripping, impressively mounted action movie – but its adherence to finicky details in the novel means that there’s not enough time to fully explore Collins’s complex world or the characters who inhabit it.

Is it the new Twilight? Is it faithful to the book? How violent is it? What’s up with Woody Harrelson’s hair? No, yes, pretty violent and Lord only knows.

Media:VarietyScore:“The first novel in Suzanne Collins’ bestselling trilogy is a futuristic fight-to-the-death thriller driven by pure survival instinct, but the creative equivalent of that go-for-broke impulse is absent from director Gary Ross’ “The Hunger Games.” Proficient, involving, ever faithful to its source and centered around Jennifer Lawrence’s impressive star turn, this much-anticipated, nearly 2 1/2-hour event picture should satiate fans, entertain the uninitiated and take an early lead among the year’s top-grossing films. Yet in the face of near-certain commercial success, no one seems to have taken the artistic gambles that might have made this respectable adaptation a remarkable one.”Quote:

The first novel in Suzanne Collins’ bestselling trilogy is a futuristic fight-to-the-death thriller driven by pure survival instinct, but the creative equivalent of that go-for-broke impulse is absent from director Gary Ross’ “The Hunger Games.” Proficient, involving, ever faithful to its source and centered around Jennifer Lawrence’s impressive star turn, this much-anticipated, nearly 2 1/2-hour event picture should satiate fans, entertain the uninitiated and take an early lead among the year’s top-grossing films. Yet in the face of near-certain commercial success, no one seems to have taken the artistic gambles that might have made this respectable adaptation a remarkable one.